Oregon Introduces S. 501 Gun Control Bill

My Recent Posts

Now that Oregon State Democrats have super majority in both the House and Senate they no longer will be outdone by Washington State or California as being known as the gun control freaks. If S.501 is approved, this will complete the transition and make the west coast completely unfriendly to gun owners. The S.501 Gun Control Bill demonstrates how far the gun grabbing legislators will go to infringe on the second amendment rights and gun ownership. The following are the main points of the S.501 Gun Control Bill:

 

  1. Requires person to secure permit before purchasing or otherwise receiving firearm. Specifies qualifications for permit and manner of applying for permit. Creates procedures for appealing denial of permit. Punishes receipt of firearm without valid permit by maximum of 364 days’ imprisonment, $6,250 fine, or both.
  2. Requires person who owns or possesses firearm to secure firearm with trigger or cable lock or in locked container. Punishes failure to secure firearm by maximum of 30 days’ imprisonment, $1,250 fine, or both.
  3. Requires person who owns or possesses firearm to report to law enforcement agency loss or theft of firearm within 24 hours. Punishes failure to report loss or theft by maximum of 30 days’ imprisonment, $1,250 fine, or both.
  4. Prohibits possession of magazine with capacity to hold more than five rounds of ammunition. Provides that person in possession of such magazine must sell or otherwise dispose of magazine within 180 days of effective date of Act. Punishes unlawful possession of magazine capable of holding more than five rounds by maximum of 364 days’ imprisonment, $6,250 fine, or both.
  5. Requires criminal background check before transfer of ammunition. Restricts ammunition receipt to 20 rounds within 30-day period.
  6. Prohibits transfer of firearm by gun dealer or private party until latter of 14 days or Department of State Police has determined that recipient is qualified to receive firearm. 

Comments to this insane Senate Bill S.501
 

Permits:
 

Gun licensing isn’t infringement, right? A young woman who has just had her life threatened can afford the wait time involved in chasing down the paperwork to defend herself. A man can wait until he can get away during business hours, hoping the right government bureaucrat is even in that day, to start the permit process to gain the permission of all knowing state to protect his family… you know, a natural human right.
 

Firearm Security:

 

A month in jail and $1,250 out of your funds to the state of Oregon (plus every other cost involved) if you don’t use a security device circumventable by hardware store bolt cutters Now believe me, I am a safe storage advocate. There is no magic device, however, that makes a security measure a full proof thing. Locked in a closet could work one person while a safe works for another. If we want to prosecute criminal negligence lets set the standard at actual criminal negligence. Someone leaves their shotgun loaded on the front lawn? Sure, prosecute. But that same someone who has their house broken into shouldn’t face a fine and jail time because they didn’t hinder their access to their property with a $6 cable.

 

Report of theft:

 

This one is actually pretty standard, and notification of law enforcement is intelligent. But, making a criminal of a crime victim?

 

Magazine Ban, anything over 5 rounds:

 

Name me the modern semi-auto pistol that has a readily available 5 round magazine? No? Nothing? 180 days from the law’s passage all nearly all semi-auto handguns, most rifles and most shotguns will become illegal to possess the normal functioning equipment for. Rendering them useless or requiring companies to make special Oregon products for and costing the citizenry more money to operate their property. It will also not prevent a crime or massacre. San Bernardino happened in a place where everything the assailants did and everything they possessed to commit their atrocity was illegal. 

 

Ammunition Background Check and 20 round/month limit.
 

Again, say goodbye to commercially available items for any handgun owner. Oregon residents saving up for the average concealed carry class will have to wait 5 months.

 

Residents who want to take any professional level self defense class? Years. The MP5 course from Teufelshund Tactical would have taken 10 years of ammo purchases to save up for. But remember folks, it's not infringement. They respect the Second Amendment they just want to legislate it into uselessness.

 

Waiting Period, minimum 2 weeks.

 

A right delayed is a right denied, except for with firearms right? Let’s go back to any of the numerous scenarios where denying someone the most efficient means of defending themselves was a bad idea. Woman murdered by ex, despite Personal Protection Order, who was waiting for the paperwork to acquire her firearm to defend herself as is her natural God given right? Must be a straw-man argument right? It has never happened… well except all those one times.

 

If Senate Bill S.501 passes, this will be a very sad and dangerous day for Oregonians. Most Oregonian gun owners know that adhering to these proposed restrictions will limit their ability to defend themselves and family members against evil people.

 

For example if a group of evil people break into your house at night carrying guns to kill you, having a gun with only 5 bullets, will not be enough to defend yourself from being killed. The time it takes to remove a gun from safe storage might be too late to save your life or love ones.

 

Many won't adhere to these requirements because if they do, most likely them and family members could end up being killed themselves by people looking to do evil.

 

 

Comments

edinmountainview Added Jan 19, 2019 - 8:15pm
And I thought we have it tough in California.  Rest assured, if S501 passes in Oregon, AG Becerra will be looking to file his own laws.
Semper  Fi
Paul Sanders Added Jan 19, 2019 - 8:47pm
I view this is a good thing.  It will eventually end up before the Supreme Court where it will be promptly shot down and set a huge precedent for the entire country.
 
Bring it, gun grabbers.  Overplay your hand, as you always do.
edinmountainview Added Jan 19, 2019 - 8:55pm
Paul Sanders - nice observation.
Semper Fi
Marty Koval Added Jan 19, 2019 - 9:02pm
edinmountainview
 
If this insane bill gets passed, it will drive most gun owners to reloading their own ammunition.
 
I image that Governor Gavin Newsom and A.G Xavier Becerra are looking at this Oregon law and are saying to themselves, how can we make it even more stringent for California. California always wants to be the leader in the most stringent and foolish laws.
 
Marty Koval Added Jan 19, 2019 - 9:07pm
Paul Sanders:
 
You are probably correct if this law passes, it will eventually get to the Supreme Court.  The process to get to the Supreme Court is slow and long. In the mean time the State of Oregon can make it very miserable for responsible gun owners.
 
edinmountainview Added Jan 19, 2019 - 9:48pm
I have no doubt, Marty, that the California government will do everything they possibly can, even cheat, to effect more stringent gun laws.  The dirty dogs.  I have been offered to learn how to reload my own ammo from a friend of mine, I will accept his offer.
Semper Fi
Paul Sanders Added Jan 19, 2019 - 11:12pm
Marty,
Unfortunately, you are correct.
 
edinmountainview,
I reload my own ammunition.  It is very fulfilling and not that difficult if you have the right equipment.  Initial cost is a little pricey for all the tools, but in the long run it is cheaper, especially if you shoot a lot.
edinmountainview Added Jan 19, 2019 - 11:30pm
Paul - My friend has the equipment and will let me use it, under his guidance of course.  I don't shoot a lot but it's easy to blow off a couple, three or four boxes of ammo just messing around.
Semper Fi
Paul Sanders Added Jan 20, 2019 - 12:20am
You have a very valuable and generous friend.  Glad to hear it.
edinmountainview Added Jan 20, 2019 - 12:38am
Yes, he is, Paul.  He is a Veteran as well, the Army Ranger type who knows his stuff.
Semper Fi
Paul Sanders Added Jan 20, 2019 - 8:34am
Marty,
 

Prohibits possession of magazine with capacity to hold more than five rounds of ammunition. Provides that person in possession of such magazine must sell or otherwise dispose of magazine within 180 days of effective date of Act. Punishes unlawful possession of magazine capable of holding more than five rounds by maximum of 364 days’ imprisonment, $6,250 fine, or both.

Hey, that one is just brilliant.  I was looking on Ruger's website and they make a Redhawk revolver in .357 mag. with 8 shot capacity.  What an ideal firearm for someone to commit murder.  No spent casings for evidence, and 8 rounds of .357 is some serious firepower.
 
They seriously don't think these things through, do they?
Marty Koval Added Jan 20, 2019 - 9:00am
When the liberal politicians discover that many gun owners have turned to making their own ammunition, I can see these controlling politicians doing the following: Placing mandatory controls or limits on how much gun powder, shells, pressure caps and reloading bullets a person can purchase at one time.  
 
Their end game is to have all guns, ammunition and ammunition building components and equipment banned from the public.  This is what you call tyranny. When you can disarm the public, there is no way to stop the totalitarianism.
Marty Koval Added Jan 20, 2019 - 9:06am
Paul:
 
I will have to take a look at that Redhawk revolver. You are right that many politicians do not think things through completely. That's why they are in politics.
opher goodwin Added Jan 20, 2019 - 10:50am
Marty - isn't there anything else other than god and guns?
White Hair'd Added Jan 20, 2019 - 11:54am
opher asked: "...isn't there anything else other than god and guns?"
     _____
Why yes, opher, there are Socialists and there are targets...
but I repeat myself.
 
 
 
 
FacePalm Added Jan 20, 2019 - 11:55am
Marty-
Here's what should happen.
Every Oregonian gun owner should completely ignore this "law," and on this basis (ok, these bases):
 
"The right to defy an unconstitutional statute is basic in our scheme.  Even when an ordinance requires a permit to make a speech, to deliver a sermon, to picket, to parade, or to assemble, it need not be honored when it’s invalid on its face."
-- Justice Potter Stewart(1915-1985), U. S. Supreme Court Justice
Source: Walker v. Birmingham, 1967
 
"The inherent right in the people to reform their government, I do not deny; and they have another right, and that is to resist unconstitutional laws without overturning the government."
-- Daniel Webster(1782-1852) US Senator
 
 'An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.'
~Norton vs. Shelby County 118 US 425 p. 442
 
'The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.' 16 Am Jur 2nd, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256
 
 "All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void."
~Marbury vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803). See also Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491 and Norton vs. Shelby County, 118 US 425 p. 442, May, 1886
+++++++++++++++++++++
i have more citations, but that oughtta be enough to get 'er started.
 
Next, i'd file suit against every sob that voted in favor, putting a claim on all the bonds that public servants are required to carry, on the grounds of violation of their Oaths of Office, and look in the law for criminal charges, as well - like, for example, felony perjury violation of their Oaths of Office.
 
If you or anyone here has any friends in Oregon, feel free to copy the foregoing and send it to them.
 
People like this need to be slapped down, HARD, every time they rear their tyrannical little heads.
 
If i remember aright, it was the British marching to confiscate firearms of the colonists which was the match that lit the fuse of the Revolution and established our Founding Principles, anyhow.  If they're itchin' for another revolution, they're barking up the right tree, IMO...and it'll bark back.  Maybe bite, too.
 
Every attempt at tyranny should be strenuously objected to, and immediately...and as adamantly as necessary.
Dino Manalis Added Jan 20, 2019 - 12:12pm
 People are different, each person has to be evaluated to assure public and personal safety.  We need good people with guns to provide adequate security.
FacePalm Added Jan 20, 2019 - 12:31pm
Opher-
"Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst.  Nations and peoples who forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedoms."
-- Robert A. Heinlein(1907-1988) American writer
 
"False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.  
Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, the most important of the code, will respect the less important and arbitrary ones, which can be violated with ease and impunity, and which, if strictly obeyed, would put an end to personal liberty... and subject innocent persons to all the vexations that the guilty alone ought to suffer?
Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. They ought to be designated as laws not preventive but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree."
-- Cesare Beccaria, (1735-1794) [Bonesana, Marchese di] Italian nobleman, criminologist, and penal reformer
Source: Dei delitti e delle pene, [On Crimes and Punishments] ch.38 (1764)
Translation is as quoted by Thomas Jefferson in his Commonplace Book
 
"Among other causes of misfortune which your not being armed brings upon you, it makes you despised..."
-- Niccolo Machiavelli(1469-1527) Italian Statesman and Political Philosopher
Doug Plumb Added Jan 20, 2019 - 12:37pm
All the killing zones have been gun free zones. Those laws matter for people that are buying a gun for some kind of commercial reason.
FacePalm Added Jan 20, 2019 - 12:42pm
Historically, gun confiscations have shortly resulted in massacres of the unarmed.
During the "Anschluss" of Austria by the Nazis, the SS went straight to the bureaucratic records, which listed not only all the registered arms of Austrians, but also the number of rounds of ammo they had, since it was "the law" at that time to register all firearms AND ammunition.  This made it extremely easy for the Nazis to determine where pockets of resistance might be, and to swiftly round up any and all potential troublemakers.
 
This is one major reason why ALL Americans should strenuously resist EVERY effort to register arms and have any centralized records of them.
opher goodwin Added Jan 20, 2019 - 1:21pm
Ward - Robert Heinlein is one of my favourite Sci-fi writers though he has a reputation of being a warmongering right-winger with dubious ideas. I prefer his Stranger in a Strange Land - grok.
opher goodwin Added Jan 20, 2019 - 1:22pm
Face - yes - all of us in the UK have been slaughtered.
FacePalm Added Jan 20, 2019 - 2:08pm
If May orders it, or if Khan orders it, armed police or military could mow down Britons with impunity - so if les gilets jaunes get a good foothold, look out.  You have nothing with which to defend yourselves.  Unarmed people, when confronted with armed people, die with depressing regularity.  Ask Turkey's Armenians, or Europe's Jews, or the Soviets' Ukrainians, or the Cambodians under Pol Pot, ad nauseum.
 
Ward has not yet posted to this thread; mine was the citation of Heinlein...and you would do well to heed his advice.
Marty Koval Added Jan 20, 2019 - 7:58pm
Opher:
 
Yes there are other subjects besides God and Guns, but these two topics are the most important. In America, the United Sates Constitution and its 27 Amendments are the corner stones and pillars of our government and society.
 
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution prevents Congress from making any law respecting an establishment of religion, prohibiting the free exercise of religion, or abridging the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, the right to peaceably assemble, or to petition for a governmental redress of grievances.
 
The Second Amendment states: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
 
Both the first and second amendments are under extreme pressure from liberal government officials and their supporters. Through political correctness, they are restricting freedom of speech and demonizing Christian values and the belief in the Almighty God.
 
At the same time they are demonizing the freedom to own guns, because they know the gun owners of America favor freedom of speech, freedom of religion and the freedom to own guns. The ultimate goal of the liberals if  allowed, would be to gut these two Amendments so they can turn America into an immoral, Godless society that allows them to do whatever their evil and sinful hearts desire.
Jeff Michka Added Jan 20, 2019 - 8:31pm
Deleting my comments means Marty's little article about STATE LAWS  in a state he doesn't live in is just fascist virtue signaling, given the comments here.  Any law restricting anything about firearms automatically will lead to the bad ol gummint taking "our" guns away and ending the 2nd amendment.  Our WB rep to the NRA hasn't come by and said she is against this OREGON effort, but that could be because the NRA has become just another Russian mouthpiece, or she has eyes for Maria Butina.  You fascists and rightist only believe in free speech when it's your speech, contrary views MUST be banned.  And once we get your guns, be sure to hug your bibles, we're coming for them next.  What are you more upset about, getting your guns taken away or your bible?  Try and shoot a deer with your bible and let us know how well that works, Marty.
Steel Breeze Added Jan 21, 2019 - 8:58am
"You can never be too rich,too handsome, or too well armed"......Marcus....
Marty Koval Added Jan 21, 2019 - 2:15pm
Jeff Michka
 
There are 168,000 Bibles that are sold or given to others in the United States every day, for a total of 61,320,000 annually. The Bible without a doubt, is truly God’s Word. The Bible is also a weapon to use against the evil one, which is explained in Hebrews 4:12 - For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
 
There are more Bibles in America, than there are guns. The Bible is the best weapon against the evil one. The evil one might be able kill the body, but it cannot kill the soul. The soul is what lives for eternity.
Jeff Michka Added Jan 21, 2019 - 5:20pm
Ithink your petty hatreds will kill you faster than the sky guy armed with bibles.  Keep cradling your guns and bibles.  Once we've got your guns, there will be some wild bible bonfires while Xtainity is outlawed and the word of Allah grace this sorry, sorry, land.  Remember, I don't believe in your sky guy book, any more than I believe in your sky guy.  Those billions and billions of prayer rugs abandoned by all those terrorists at the US/Mexico border will have use.  I'll make sure you get one Marty, I 'd hate to see you hurt your knees five times a day while you're on your knees facing Mecca.  LOL
Jim Stoner Added Jan 22, 2019 - 1:38am
I do not live in Oregon, but I would support the measures in that proposed law for my state, except #5--the 20 round/month limit doesn't seem practical for commercial places supporting target practice or training.   There would need to be some transition period for those who want to remain being "law-abiding gun owners", and some degree of restraint in the initial enforcement of this law. 
FacePalm Added Jan 22, 2019 - 10:05am
Jim-
Was there a part of "No Unconstitutional law needs to be obeyed" or "An Unconstitutional law is invalid on it's face" that you didn't understand?
Jim Stoner Added Jan 22, 2019 - 8:45pm
That's your opinion.  If passed, it will be tested in the courts.   And it's "its", not "it's". 
 
As for whether a law you think is unconstitutional needs to be obeyed by you, that's up to you.   My advice is, pick carefully your spots to disobey the law. 
FacePalm Added Jan 23, 2019 - 12:11pm
"The law" is invalid when it's clearly Unconstitutional.  That many people are ignorant of both the intent and purpose of the Constitution - and exactly who is restrained by it's provisions - does not make this premise any less true.
 
For example, i knew then and know now that D'OhBamacare was completely Unconstitutional, and haven't obeyed a whit of it.  There is NO part of the Constitution which makes it lawful for ANYone - especially a sworn public servant - to require anyone to purchase anything from anyone at any time for any reason...despite what SCOTUS said, who was NEVER delegated the power to "interpret" a damn thing by Article 3.
 
When it comes to Oregon's "Law," i could simply cite this SCOTUS ruling, and precedent would rule the day(or should; attorney's are deceptive by the nature of the job):
 
"[The Right to Keep and Bear Arms] is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed;...  This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government,…". 
~U.S. v. Cruikshank Et Al. 92 U.S. 542 (1875).
 
...and since sworn State actors are required to obey the Constitution...
 
In sum, then, "Know rights or no rights."
Jim Stoner Added Jan 23, 2019 - 12:54pm
And yet, this SCOTUS has also ruled that it is constitutional for states and localities to regulate the manufacture and sale of weapons, along with their use. So, we shall see, and I stand by my advice to you.   Otherwise, you may be smacking your face with your palm in a court of law. 
Marty Koval Added Jan 23, 2019 - 1:41pm
The United States Constitution applies to all of the states making up the union. A constitution is a plan that provides the rules for a government, be it state or nation. All constitutions serve several purposes. First, it sets the ideals that the people bound by the constitution believe in and share. Second, it establishes a basic structure of government. Third, it defines the powers and duties of the government. While the state constitutions bind the people in that state, all state constitutions must abide to the United States Constitution. The US Constitution is the supreme law for the states in the Union.
 
The American court system including SCOTUS have legislated from the bench on certain decision that goes against what the founding fathers of America envisioned. All the judges have prejudices and some have made rulings that were based on those prejudices. Mankind is fallible and makes many bad decisions based on emotions. Decisions based on emotions are usually wrong.
FacePalm Added Jan 23, 2019 - 10:47pm
Jimmeh-
When SCOTUS is wrong, it's WRONG.
They're men/women like any other, ergo fallible.
i refer you once again to:
 
"No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."
16th American Jurisprudence 2nd edition, Sec 177, late 2nd, Sec 256
 
Period.
 
But what do you care?  You're a globalist supporter, and will be eaten by the fleas of your treasonous associate dogs.
Jim Stoner Added Jan 23, 2019 - 11:50pm
Ooh, that's not nice! 
 
I totally agree; the Supreme Court may decide the law, but not the truth, and their decisions are subject to later reversal. On the subject of constitutional interpretation reversals, I feel that will happen with the Second Amendment, when we wise up sufficiently.  Those persons are somewhat isolated, but only somewhat so. 
 
To answer your question (I encourage more of them), I care very much.   As for treason, I'm mostly focused on that of some who were mistakenly given the current reins of power, and you should be, too, and less fired up about this alleged "globalist" behavior (not nearly as organized or successful as it should be). 
 
Transnational agreements of all kinds are in retreat; that's regress as far as I'm concerned.   We have been blessed to live in a sustained period with less war than usual; in the graph of that activity, we may be near an inflection point.  If your side prevails, it will shoot back up again; if my side, it will dip toward zero and stay there. 
FacePalm Added Jan 24, 2019 - 2:44am
Jimmeh-
Continued support of globalist pedophile/pedovore satanists NWO/OWG types cannot be termed an intelligent decision by any means.
 
Take a gander at the UN troops who routinely engaged not only in rape, but also child abduction and sex trafficking of them...with impunity, so far.  These are the types of people you're supporting with your treasonous stance toward globalists.
 
Are you looking forward to Agenda 21, slated for 2030, now?  Where the People are "stacked and packed" in high-rises, and most of the country declared "off-limits" to you because you're not in the ruling class?  Where private ownership of personal transportation will be either forbidden or so highly taxed as to be out of reach of most Americans?  Where 24/7 surveillance and "social credit" scores determine the level of the "privileges" you are extended by your globalist masters?
 
This future will be your reality if you don't oppose them, and strenuously, both in word and deed, and NOW.  Already, there is a massive nationalist movement sweeping the globe: Brazil, Italy, the Brexiteers, Hungary, Austria, Poland, the Czech Republic, Russia - globalists as unelected appointees by the PtB in Brussels are being totally rejected.  Leave the Dark Side behind forever, Vader.
FacePalm Added Jan 24, 2019 - 2:49am
And SCOTUS doesn't "decide the law."  If you disagree, please point to that part of the Constitution which clearly states this.  It certainly isn't in the named, delegated powers of Article 3...
 
"It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties.  We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution.  The freeman of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents.  They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle."
-- James Madison(1751-1836), Father of the Constitution for the USA, 4th US President
Source: "A Memorial and Remonstrance", 1785: Works 1:163

Recent Articles by Writers Marty Koval follows.